Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 315–331 | Cite as

The mechanics of multi-joint posture and movement control

  • Neville Hogan


The dependence of muscle force on muscle length gives rise to a “spring-like” behavior which has been shown to play a role in the execution of single-joint posture and movement. This paper extends this concept and considers the influence of the apparent mechanical behavior of the neural, muscular and skeletal system on the control and coordination of multiple degree of freedom posture and movement.

A rigorous definition of “spring-like” behavior is presented. From it a numerically quantifiable, experimental test of spring-like behavior is formulated. It is shown that if the steady-state force-displacement behavior of a limb is not spring-like, this can only be due to the action of inter-muscular feedback, and can not be due to intrinsic muscle properties. The directional character of the spring-like behavior of a multiple degree of freedom system is described. The unique way in which synergistic coactivation of polyarticular muscles may modulate the directional properties of the spring-like behavior of a multiple degree of freedom system is explained.

Dynamic aspects of postural behavior are also considered. The concept of mechanical impedance is presented as a rigorous dynamic generalisation of the postural stiffness of the limb. The inertial behavior of the system is characterised by its mobility. As with the stiffness or impedance, in the multiple degree of freedom case it has a directional property. The way in which the apparent kinematic redundancy of the musculo-skeletal system may be used to modify its dynamic behavior is explained. Whereas the inertial behavior of a single limb segment is not modifiable, it is shown that the apparent inertial behavior of a multiple degree of freedom system may be modulated by repositioning the joints.

A unified description of the posture and movement of a multi-joint system is presented by defining a “virtual trajectory” of equilibrium positions for the limb which may be specified by the neuro-muscular system. The way in which this approach may lead to a simplification of some the apparent computational difficulties associated with the control of multi-joint motion is discussed.


Mechanical Impedance Intrinsic Muscle Directional Property Limb Segment Freedom System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abend, W., Bizzi, E., Morasso, P.: Human arm trajectory formation. Brain 105, 331–348 (1982)Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, G.C., Gottlieb, G.L.: Compliance of the human ankle joint. J. Biomech. Eng. 99, 166–170 (1977)Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, J.R., Hogan, N.: Impedance control as a framework for implementing obstacle avoidance in a manipulator. In: Control of manufacturing processes and robotic systems. pp. 243–251. Hardt, D.E., Book, W.J., eds. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1983Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, N.A.: The co-ordination and regulation of movements. New York: Pergamon Press 1967Google Scholar
  5. Bigland, B., Lippold, O.C.J.: The relation between force, velocity and integrated electrical activity in human muscles. J. Physiol. 123, 214–224 (1954)Google Scholar
  6. Bizzi, E., Polit, A., Morasso, P.: Mechanisms underlying achievement of final head position. J. Neurophysiol. 39, 435–444 (1976)Google Scholar
  7. Bizzi, E., Dev, P., Morasso, P., Polit, A.: Effect of load disturbances during centrally initiated movements. J. Neurophysiol. 41, 542–556 (1978)Google Scholar
  8. Bizzi, E., Accornero, N., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Processes underlying arm trajectory formation in monkeys. In: Brain mechanisms of perceptual awareness and purposeful behavior. pp. 311–318. Ajmone-Marson, C., Pompieano, O., eds. New York: Raven Press 1981aGoogle Scholar
  9. Bizzi, E., Accornero, N., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Central and peripheral mechanisms in motor control. In: New perspectives in cerebral localization. pp 23–24. Thompson, R.A., Green, J.R., eds. New York: Raven Press 1981bGoogle Scholar
  10. Bizzi, E., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Mechanical properties of muscles: implications for motor control. Trends in Neurosci. 5, No. 11, 395–398 (1982a)Google Scholar
  11. Bizzi, E., Accornero, N., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Arm trajectory formation in monkeys. Exp. Brain Res. 46, 139–143 (1982b)Google Scholar
  12. Bizzi, E., Accornero, N., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Posture control and trajectory formation during arm movement. J. Neurosci. 4, 2738–2744 (1984)Google Scholar
  13. Cooke, J.D.: Dependence of human arm movements on limb mechanical properties. Brain Res. 165, 366–369 (1979)Google Scholar
  14. Crago, P.E., Houk, J.C., Hasan, Z.: Regulatory actions of the human stretch reflex. J. Neurophysiol. 39, 925–935 (1976)Google Scholar
  15. Crandall, S.H., Karnopp, D.C., Kurtz, E.F., Jr., Pridmore-Brown, D.C.: Dynamics of mechanical and electromechanical systems. New York: McGraw-Hill 1968Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, A.G.: Functional tuning of the nervous system with control of movement or maintenance of a steady posture. III. Mechanographic analysis of the execution by man of the simplest motor tasks. Biophysics 11, 766–775 (1966)Google Scholar
  17. Flash, T., Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A.: Inferring movement and muscle synergies from multi-joint arm posture. Neurosci. Abstr. 10, 635 (1984)Google Scholar
  18. Gordon, A.M., Huxley, A.F., Julian, F.J.: The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibers. J. Physiol. 184, 170–192 (1966)Google Scholar
  19. Hill, A.V.: Heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc. R. Soc. (London) B 126, 136–195 (1938)Google Scholar
  20. Hoffer, J.A., Andreassen, S.: Regulation of soleus muscle stiffness in premammillary cats: intrinsic and reflex components. J. Neurophysiol. 45, 267–285 (1981)Google Scholar
  21. Hogan, N.: Adaptive stiffness control in human movement. In: 1979 advances in bioengineering. pp. 53–54. Wells, M.K., ed. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1979Google Scholar
  22. Hogan, N.: Tuning muscle stiffness can simplify control of natural movement. In: 1980 advances in bioengineering. pp. 279–282. Mow, V.C. ed. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1980aGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogan, N.: Mechanical impedance control in assitive devices and manipulators. Proc. 1980 Joint Autom. Controls Conf. paper TA 10-B (1980b)Google Scholar
  24. Hogan, N.: Control and coordination of voluntary arm movements. Proc. 1982 Am. Control Conf. 1, 552–558 (1982a)Google Scholar
  25. Hogan, N.: Programmable impedance control of industrial manipulators. pp. 186–191. Proc. Conference on CAD/CAM in Mechanical Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 1982bGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogan, N.: Mechanical impedance control in assistive devices and manipulators. In: Robot motion: planning and control. pp. 361–371. Brady, M., Hollerbach, J.M., Johnson, T.L., Lozano-Perez, T., Mason, M.T., eds. Cambridge: MIT Press 1983Google Scholar
  27. Hogan, N.: Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles. IEEE Trans. AC29, 681–690 (1984a)Google Scholar
  28. Hogan, N.: Impedance control of industrial robots. Robotics Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 1, 97–113 (1984b)Google Scholar
  29. Hogan, N.: An organising principle for a class of voluntary movements. J. Neurosci. 4, 2745–2754 (1984c)Google Scholar
  30. Hogan, N.: Impedance control: an approach to manipulation. Proc. 1984 Am. Control Conf. 1, 304–313 (1984d)Google Scholar
  31. Hogan, N.: Some computational problems simplified by impedance control. Proc. 1984 ASME Conf. Comput. Eng. 1, 203–209 (1984e)Google Scholar
  32. Hogan, N.: Impedance control: an approach to manipulation. Part I: Theory; Part II: Implementation; Part III: Application. ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas. Control 107, 1–24 (1985)Google Scholar
  33. Hogan, N., Cotter, S.L.: Cartesian impedance control of a nonlinear manipulator. In: Robotics research and advanced applications. pp. 121–128. Book W.J., ed. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1982Google Scholar
  34. Hollerbach, J.M.: Computers, brains and the control of movement. Trends Neurosci. 6, 189–192 (1982)Google Scholar
  35. Houk, J.C.: Regulation of stiffness by skeletomotor reflexes. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 41, 99–114 (1979)Google Scholar
  36. Joyce, G., Rack, P.M.H., Westbury, D.R.: The mechanical properties of cat soleus muscle during controlled lengthening and shortening movements. J. Physiol. 204, 461–474 (1969)Google Scholar
  37. Katz, B.: The relation between force and speed in muscular contraction. J. Physiol. 96, 45–64 (1939)Google Scholar
  38. Kelso, J.A.S.: Motor control mechanisms underlying human movement reproduction. J. Exp. Psychol. 3, 529–543 (1977)Google Scholar
  39. Kelso, J.A.S., Holt, K.G.: Exploring a vibratory system analysis of human movement production. J. Neurophysiol. 43, 1183–1196 (1980)Google Scholar
  40. Lanman, J.M.: Movement and the mechanical properties of the intact human elbow joint. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1980Google Scholar
  41. Matthews, P.B.C.: The dependence of tension upon extension in the stretch reflex of the soleus muscle of the decerebrate cat. J. Physiol. 147, 521–546 (1959)Google Scholar
  42. Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A., Hogan, N., Bizzi, E.: Neural and geometric factors subserving arm posture. J. Neurosci. (1984, in press)Google Scholar
  43. Nichols, T.R.: Soleus muscle stiffness and its reflex control. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University 1974Google Scholar
  44. Nichols, T.R., Houk, J.C.: Reflex compensation for variations in the mechanical properties of muscle. Science 181, 182–184 (1973)Google Scholar
  45. Nichols, T.R., Houk, J.C.: Improvement in linearity and regulation of stiffness that results from actions of stretch reflex. J. Neurophysiol. 39, 119–142 (1976)Google Scholar
  46. Paul, R.P.C.: Robot manipulators: mathematics, programming, and control. Cambridge: MIT Press 1981Google Scholar
  47. Paynter, H.M.: Analysis and design of engineering systems. Cambridge: MIT Press 1981Google Scholar
  48. Polit, A., Bizzi, E.: Processes controlling arm movements in monkeys. Science 102, 1235–1237 (1978)Google Scholar
  49. Polit, A., Bizzi, E.: Characteristics of motor programs underlying arm movements in monkeys. J. Neurophysiol. 42, 183–194 (1979)Google Scholar
  50. Rack, P.M.H., Westbury, D.R.: The effects of length and stimulus rate on tension in the isometric cat soleus muscle. J. Physiol. 204, 443–460 (1969)Google Scholar
  51. Rosenberg, R.C., Karnopp, D.C.: Introduction to physical system dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill 1983Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt, R.A., McGown, C.: Terminal accuracy of unexpectedly loaded rapid movements: evidence for a mass-spring mechanism in programming. J. Motor Behav. 12, 149–161 (1980)Google Scholar
  53. Stiefel, E.L., Scheifele, G.: Linear and regular celestial mechanics. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1971Google Scholar
  54. Vickers, W.H.: A physiologically based model of neuromuscular system dynamics. IEEE Trans. Man Machine Sys. 21-23 (1968)Google Scholar
  55. Wilkie, D.R.: The relation between force and velocity in human muscles. J. Physiol. 110, 249 (1950)Google Scholar
  56. Zahalak, G.I., Heyman, S.J.: A quantitative evaluation of the frequency response characteristics of active human skeletal muscle in vivo. J. Biomech. Eng. 101, 28–37 (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neville Hogan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations